Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/50 Richest Indians in the GCC


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Clear consensus is that this is a copyrightable list, which precludes us from having an article that merely is the list (i.e., reproduces it); and that the list itself is not notable, which precludes us from having an article about the list as a topic. postdlf (talk) 16:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

50 Richest Indians in the GCC

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article doesn't have much of a use. I don't have a clue what the GCC is and can't find it on Google. In addition, if we even needed a list about the richest people, we should start and end with just people in general, not specifically Indians. -&copy;2015 Compassionate727( Talk )( Contributions ) 14:51, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment GCC=Gulf Cooperation Council. Basically the fifty richest Indians to live in countries who are part of it. This is an annual list by the magazine Arabian Business. Cowlibob (talk) 15:46, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 16:09, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:30, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:30, 10 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep: This is list of richest Indians by notable magazine in vast area of Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). Many Indians are working there, rather that area is known for Indian business people. So this list deserves place on Wikipedia. I have done some copy editing on the list. -- Human 3015   TALK   23:25, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as it is, this is indiscriminate information. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * this is not any indiscriminate info, as I said in my earlier comment that Indian community has some impact in that region. Independent sources like Rediff, The Economic Times, Indian Express are also giving news about this Arabian Business magazine list. And I already started on this list to make it look more encyclopedic. But it will take some time because list is little bit long. -- Human 3015   TALK   02:18, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I could maybe live with the Richest Indians in the GCC but the "top 50" sounds like its this particular list that matters (aka the Time 100 or something). However, we already have the richest Indians at Forbes list of Indian billionaires and List of Arabs by net worth but we don't have lists of "Richest nationality or people with this origin within another nation or region". There's probably an article on Indians in the region that could use a passing mention of this content at best. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:47, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jujutacular (talk) 04:43, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: This appears to be reproduction of a list produced by the effort of a particular magazine for their own publication, and as such falls under Wikipedia:Copyright in lists? Pinging User:Moonriddengirl who may have an expert view. AllyD (talk) 10:46, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Depends on how they determine wealth. If it's a straightforward amalgamation of facts - say, based on tax records - there's no creativity in the list. If there is creativity in the list, say if they use complex characteristics to determine wealth (estimates of stock value, maybe), then there could be. I probably shouldn't weight in on my thoughts on retention of this list, but I'm concerned about this list for other reasons. The Forbes List is annually updated. This list is likely to go out of date instantly. That could be remedied by clarity that it is the "50 Foo as of October 2015" but that only highlights the essential question: so what? What is the encyclopedic value of knowing the 50 Foo as of date? And what are the potential safety or privacy implications of having your name posted forever on a top 10 website in the world listing you as massively wealthy? Aside from the copyright concerns, I don't believe that this list should be included, unless it is a regularly updated feature. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:56, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This page indicates the methodology employed by the magazine: "... put together over the course of the last year by a dedicated team of researchers... we have estimated the value of their assets, taken their shareholdings into account and projected a company value ... this is purely our estimate of the Gulf’s richest Indians". For me, that is clear indication of the publication's creativity in their list. AllyD (talk) 20:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That's creative compilation in a nutshell. The page has now been blanked with copyvio, AllyD. If the determination is that the list is notable, we will have to turn into an article about the list, not a recreation of it. For those unfamiliar, see WP:TOP100. Just to be clear here, the issue is that this is not fact they are reproducing. They are speculating. Speculation is creative. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete for failing WP:SALAT. Move over, one-eyed horse thieves from Montana. Just too specific for its own good. Forbes lists are more general. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:20, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete: A WP:COPYVIO of one of many lists put together by this particular publication, without context or additional information. Fails WP:GNG in itself and doesn't really provide enough to enhance and expand articles under the Indian diaspora categories. AllyD (talk) 20:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.